Effectiveness of continuous or intermittent vital signs monitoring in preventing adverse events on general wards: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Vital signs monitoring is an old hospital practice for patient safety but evaluation of its effectiveness is not widespread. We aimed to identify strategies to improve intermittent or continuous vital signs monitoring in general wards; and their effectiveness in preventing adverse events on general hospital wards.

METHODS

Publications searched between 1980 and June 2014 in five databases. Main outcome measures were in-hospital death, cardiac arrest, intensive care unit (ICU) transfers, length of stay, identification of physiological deterioration and activation of rapid response systems.

RESULTS

Twenty-two studies assessing the effect of continuous (9) or intermittent monitoring (13) and reporting outcomes on 203,407 patients in-hospital wards across 13 countries were included in this review. Both monitoring practices led to early identification of patient deterioration, increased rapid response activations and improvements in timeliness or completeness of vital signs documentation. Innovative intermittent monitoring approaches are associated with modest reduction in in-hospital mortality over intermittent vital signs monitoring in 'usual care'. However, there was no evidence of significant reduction in ICU transfers or other adverse events with either intermittent or continuous monitoring.

CONCLUSIONS

This review of heterogeneous monitoring approaches found no conclusive confirmation of improvements in prevention of cardiac arrest, reduction in length of hospital stay, or prevention of other neurological or cardiovascular adverse events. The evidence found to date is insufficient to recommend continuous vital signs monitoring in general wards as routine practice. Future evaluations of effectiveness need to be undertaken with more rigorous methods and homogeneous outcome measurements.

Non-beneficial treatments in hospital at the end of life: a systematic review on extent of the problem

PURPOSE

To investigate the extent of objective 'non-beneficial treatments (NBTs)' (too much) anytime in the last 6 months of life in routine hospital care.

DATA SOURCES

English language publications in Medline, EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane library, and the grey literature (January 1995-April 2015).

STUDY SELECTION

All study types assessing objective dimensions of non-beneficial medical or surgical diagnostic, therapeutic or non-palliative procedures administered to older adults at the end of life (EOL).

DATA EXTRACTION

A 13-item quality score estimated independently by two authors.

RESULTS OF DATA SYNTHESIS

Evidence from 38 studies indicates that on average 33-38% of patients near the EOL received NBTs. Mean prevalence of resuscitation attempts for advanced stage patients was 28% (range 11-90%). Mean death in intensive care unit (ICU) was 42% (range 11-90%); and mean death rate in a hospital ward was 44.5% (range 29-60%). Mean prevalence of active measures including dialysis, radiotherapy, transfusions and life support treatment to terminal patient was 7-77% (mean 30%). Non-beneficial administration of antibiotics, cardiovascular, digestive and endocrine treatments to dying patients occurred in 11-75% (mean 38%). Non-beneficial tests were performed on 33-50% of patients with do-not-resuscitate orders. From meta-analyses, the pooled prevalence of non-beneficial ICU admission was 10% (95% CI 0-33%); for chemotherapy in the last six weeks of life was 33% (95% CI 24-41%).

CONCLUSION

This review has confirmed widespread use of NBTs at the EOL in acute hospitals. While a certain level of NBT is inevitable, its extent, variation and justification need further scrutiny.

Vital signs monitoring and nurse-patient interaction: A qualitative observational study of hospital practice

BACKGROUND

High profile safety failures have demonstrated that recognising early warning signs of clinical and physiological deterioration can prevent or reduce harm resulting from serious adverse events. Early warning scoring systems are now routinely used in many places to detect and escalate deteriorating patients. Timely and accurate vital signs monitoring are critical for ensuring patient safety through providing data for early warning scoring systems, but little is known about current monitoring practices.

OBJECTIVE

To establish a profile of nurses' vital signs monitoring practices, related dialogue, and adherence to health service protocol in New South Wales, Australia.

METHODS

Direct observations of nurses' working practices were conducted in two wards. The observations focused on times of the day when vital signs were generally measured. Patient interactions were recorded if occurring any time during the observation periods. Participants (n=42) included nursing staff on one chronic disease medical and one acute surgical ward in a large urban teaching hospital in New South Wales.

RESULTS

We observed 441 patient interactions. Measurement of vital signs occurred in 52% of interactions. The minimum five vital signs measures required by New South Wales Health policy were taken in only 6-21% of instances of vital signs monitoring. Vital signs were documented immediately on 93% of vitals-taking occasions and documented according to the policy in the patient's chart on 89% of these occasions. Nurse-patient interactions were initiated for the purpose of taking vital signs in 49% of interactions, with nurse-patient discourse observed during 88% of all interactions. Nurse-patient dialogue led to additional care being provided to patients in 12% of interactions.

CONCLUSION

The selection of appropriate vital signs measured and responses to these appears to rely on nurses' clinical judgement or time availability rather than on policy-mandated frequency. The prevalence of incomplete sets of vital signs may limit identification of deteriorating patients. The findings from this study present an important baseline profile against which to evaluate the impact of introducing continuous monitoring approaches on current hospital practice.